Thread: God's "rights"

Originally Posted by Cardinal TT

In theory sounds ok but the person who came up with that quote wouldn't be agreeing if they were the receiver of Gods fury and wrath

Perhaps not, criminals tend to object to being punished even though they deserve it.

In court once two people were in similar circumstances but one had a conviction recorded and the other didn't based on their age ON THE DAY THEY WERE IN COURT. Is that "fair"? Not to me, but one could suggest one received a just sentance and the other was shown mercy.

Same with God, a sentence against someone will never be unjust, never undeserving, never too harsh; but in His mercy God can issue a less harsh sentence.

Originally Posted by FunFromOz

Perhaps not, criminals tend to object to being punished even though they deserve it.

In court once two people were in similar circumstances but one had a conviction recorded and the other didn't based on their age ON THE DAY THEY WERE IN COURT. Is that "fair"? Not to me, but one could suggest one received a just sentance and the other was shown mercy.

Same with God, a sentence against someone will never be unjust, never undeserving, never too harsh; but in His mercy God can issue a less harsh sentence.

Differing sentences based general criteria is not favoritism.

Originally Posted by Colonel

Differing sentences based general criteria is not favoritism.

Not sure what you're trying to say there Colonel.

Originally Posted by FunFromOz

Not sure what you're trying to say there Colonel.

When two criminals get different sentences because of criteria related to their cases or backgrounds and not related to their persons then it is not favoritism.

Originally Posted by Colonel

When two criminals get different sentences because of criteria related to their cases or backgrounds and not related to their persons then it is not favoritism.

Both were traffic offences
Same police officer
Only in court as police officer was going on leave and didn't have time to do the paperwork for an "on-the-spot" fine.

Both were fined by the (male) judge - from memory

The 18+ year old (on the day in court) male had a conviction recorded against him
The (attractive) <18 year old (on the day in court) female just got a good behaviour bond

Let's say their names are Peter and Anne. If we had switched their ages and the result would have been that Anne had been convicted and Peter had received a good behavior bond then it wouldn't have been favoritism because then it would be based on criteria not related to the persons as such.

Originally Posted by Colonel

Let's say their names are Peter and Anne. If we had switched their ages and the result would have been that Anne had been convicted and Peter had received a good behavior bond then it wouldn't have been favoritism because then it would be based on criteria not related to the persons as such.

I still don't follow you. It seems to me that the main criteria for different sentences was the age of the person AT THE TIME OF THE COURT APPEARANCE not at the time of the offence which is very related to the persons as such.

Originally Posted by FunFromOz

I still don't follow you. It seems to me that the main criteria for different sentences was the age of the person AT THE TIME OF THE COURT APPEARANCE not at the time of the offence which is very related to the persons as such.

That's irrespective of persons but the criterium may be argued to be inconsistent with true justice anyway.

Originally Posted by Colonel

That's irrespective of persons but the criterium may be argued to be inconsistent with true justice anyway.

I think I understand now.

True justice is (among other things) connected to an absence of favoritism in the Bible and God is Judge of mankind.